Bedford Health Properties, LLC, et al. v. Estate of Williams
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-01274-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-01274-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2006 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Substitution of fictitious parties - M.R.C.P. 15(c)(2) - M.R.C.P. 9(h) - Service of amended complaint - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - Notice - M.R.C.P. 8 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: COBB, P.J., AND GRAVES, J. CONCUR IN PART Non Participating Judge(s): Randolph, J. Dissenting Author : Diaz, J. DIAZ, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Cobb, P.J., and Graves, J., Concur in Part and Dissent in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-07-2005 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BEDFORD HEALTH PROPERTIES, LLC,
HATTIESBURG MEDICAL PARK, INC.,
HATTIESBURG MEDICAL PARK MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, MICHAEL E. McELROY, SR., M. E.
McELROY, JR., M. E. McELROY, INC., BEDFORD
CARE CENTER-MONROE HALL, LLC, BEDFORD
CARE CENTER-WARREN HALL, LLC, ROBERT
PERRY AND GINA SIMONETTI |
BENJAMIN CONNELL HEINZ,
WILLIAM R. LANCASTER, ANDREW CHRISTOPHER CLAUSEN |
||
| Appellee: | THE ESTATE OF CLIFTON WILLIAMS BY AND THROUGH GRACE HAWTHORNE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFTON WILLIAMS, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFTON WILLIAMS, AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF CLIFTON WILLIAMS | DOUGLAS BRYANT CHAFFIN, ANTHONY LANCE REINS, KENNETH LUKE CONNOR, SUSAN NICHOLS ESTES |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Substitution of fictitious parties - M.R.C.P. 15(c)(2) - M.R.C.P. 9(h) - Service of amended complaint - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - Notice - M.R.C.P. 8 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Grace Hawthorne, the administratrix of the Estate of Clifton Williams, filed suit against numerous defendants in the Forrest County Circuit Court. The complaint alleged various claims: negligence; medical malpractice; malice and/or gross negligence; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; statutory survival claim; and statutory wrongful death. Clifton Williams had resided in a nursing home in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, from 1993 until December 16, 2001. In their answers to the complaint, the Original Defendants claimed that Williams had not resided at Conva-Rest of Hattiesburg, but instead he had resided at Conva-Rest of Northgate located in Hattiesburg. The Estate filed a motion to substitute parties and leave to amend the complaint. The motion also dismissed the incorrect Original Defendants. The trial court dismissed the incorrect defendants without prejudice and granted the Estate leave to file an amended complaint to substitute defendants. The Estate filed an amended complaint and named as defendants Bedford Health Properties, L.L.C.; Hattiesburg Medical Park, Inc.; Hattiesburg Medical Park Management Corporation; Michael E. McElroy, Sr.; M. E. McElroy, Jr.; M. E. McElroy, Inc.; HMP Management; Bedford Care Center -Monroe Hall, L.L.C.; Bedford Care Center - Warren Hall, L.L.C.; Robert Perry; Gina Simonetti; John Does 3 through 10; and Unidentified Entities 5 through 10 (as to Conva-Rest of Northgate, n/k/a/ Bedford Care Center - Monroe Hall and Bedford Care Center - Warren Hall. Only four Original Defendants were named in both the complaint and the amended complaint. They were Bedford Health Properties, L.L.C.; Hattiesburg Medical Park, Inc.; Hattiesburg Medical Park Management Corporation; and Michael E. McElroy, Sr. The Amended Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15(c). The court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted certification for interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court granted the petition for interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Amended Defendants argue that the Estate failed to properly substitute the seven new defendants named in the amended complaint for a fictitious party pursuant to M.R.C.P. 9(h). Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15(c)(2), a proper amendment pursuant to Rule 9(h) will relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. Rule 9(h) exists for the benefit of a party who is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in his pleadings. Even if the plaintiff knows the true name of the person, he is still ignorant of his name if he lacks knowledge of the facts giving him a cause of action against the that person. The relation back privilege provided for fictitious parties under Rule 15(c)(2) requires the plaintiff to actually exercise a reasonably diligent inquiry into the identity of the fictitious party. Here, the amended complaint failed to properly substitute any defendant for a fictitious party under Rule 9(h). In other words, Rule 9(h) does not apply in this case. The motion to substitute clearly shows that the Estate simply substituted one set of new defendants for some of the named parties in the original complaint. The Estate merely added the seven new defendants under the guise of substituting them for the fictitious party names of Unidentified Entities 1-4 and John Does 1-3. In other words, the Estate sued five incorrect defendants in the original complaint. The Estate sought to remedy the problem by dismissing these five Original Defendants and erroneously substituting the new defendants as “fictitious” parties. However, the Estate actually made a blatant change of these five Original Defendants for the seven new defendants, not fictitious parties. In addition, the name of the correct nursing care facilities and the corresponding identities of the officers, licensees, and administrators clearly were known to Hawthorne at the time of filing the complaint. Since the amended complaint did not add true fictitious parties, then pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15(c), M.R.C.P. 4(h) controls the time period for service of an amended complaint. The seven newly added defendants in the amended complaint were not served with the amended complaint within 120 days of filing the original complaint. The Estate argues that even if the substitution via Rule 9(h) is incorrect, then provided the parties had notice and the other elements of Rule 15(c) are met, the amendment is proper. There are two major distinctions between the original complaint and the amended complaint. The place of the alleged injuries and Williams’ residence are different in the original complaint and the amended complaint. Furthermore, there are a number of changes in the named licensees; administrators; and parties that owned, operated, and/or controlled the two nursing facilities in the amended complaint. The comments to M.R.C.P. 15(c) concerning the first test to determine whether an amendment relates back to the original complaint is whether the amended claim or defense arose from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original. Notwithstanding the unique circumstances of this case, the four Original/Amended Defendants knew that there was simply a mistake in the location and corresponding personnel of the Estate’s claims. In fact, the defendants pointed out the incorrect location of the nursing home to the Estate in their answers. Furthermore, the injuries alleged to be suffered by Williams were the same, and the same eight claims stated in the amended complaint were stated in the original complaint. Bedford Health Properties, L.L.C., owned both ConvaRest of Hattiesburg and ConvaRest of Northgate. Also, Michael E. McElroy, Sr., one of the original named defendants, was an administrator of ConvaRest - Northgate and a licensee of ConvaRest of Hattiesburg. No new claim was added to the amended complaint. Under M.R.C.P. 8, it is only necessary that the pleadings provide sufficient notice to the defendant of the claims and grounds upon which relief which is sought. The premise of the lawsuit, to sue the owners, managers, and operators of a nursing facility for injuries suffered by Williams, remained the same. As to the four Original/Amended Defendants, the amended complaint relates back to the date of the original complaint. The change in location from ConvaRest of Hattiesburg to ConvaRest Northgate met Rule 15(c). With regard to the newly added defendants, they had to have notice, not service of process, of the lawsuit within 120 days of filing the original complaint. There is no proof pursuant to Rule 15(c)(1) that all of the seven newly-added Amended Defendants had formal notice of the lawsuit between the filing of the original complaint on December 13, 2002, and the filing of the amended complaint in August 2005. Five of the newly added Amended Defendants, Bedford Care Center - Monroe Hall, L.L.C.; Bedford Care Center - Warren Hall, L.L.C.; M. E. McElroy, Inc.; HMP Management ; and Michael McElroy, Jr., had notice of the lawsuit within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint. As to Robert Perry and Gina Simonetti, there is no proof that these individuals would have known of the lawsuit within 120 days of filing the complaint. The record provides no proof that Perry and Simonetti were notified by any of the other Original or Amended Defendants that the lawsuit existed. Therefore, those two were not correctly added Amended Defendants. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
